Re: [ifwp] Re: Postel's view of Internet users

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Mikki Barry wrote:

> I have been working on a solution.  I attended the Reston IFWP conference, the 
> Geneva IFWP conference, have read the mail from various lists, and have been 
> working rather consistantly on a solution.  But this proposal ignores all the 
> work that we have already done to achieve consensus.

If you truly feel that way then *IGNORE* the proposal and draft your own
proposal that meets your requirements. But don't waste everybody's time
and yours by criticizing Postel and drawing everybody's attention to his
work. 

> THAT was the proposal of something "better."  It is out there, public
> and available. 

Where is this proposal? If it was posted to this secret IFWP mailing list,
I only found out about this list through a forwarded message from the
list. This list is not mentioned at the IFWP website. And I cannot read
the secret archive of this list since it is protected by password and the
instructions at the end of this message are wrong.

> I do not feel Postel's 
> incorporates the consensus of the prior meetings, or the mailing list 
> discussions, and will not incorporate the consensus achieved at the future 
> meetings.  For this reason, I feel that it should be scrapped and we should 
> start from what we already have.

I've got news for you. You have no right to scrap Postel's proposal nor
does anyone else. Postel has as much right to speak and to issue proposala
as anyone else. You have no right to suppress his opinions or to suppress
his views of how to incorporate the meeting consensus points into a
working organization. That's not how you build consensus.

You build consensus by saying: "That's a very interesting proposal Jon,
but I think you missed the point of the Geneva meeting. For instance your
proposal says X but I think that if we do Y then we more fully reflect the
consensus of Geneva. Here's a proposal that I think will be more
acceptable to most people". And then follow it with some details. Not
handwaving, not smart remarks, but cold hard details. Without the details,
your proposal is contrary to every single point of consensus at both the
Reston and Geneva meetings because it is secret but reston and Geneva were
about openness.

> I have asked about the Articles of Incorporation actually.  I have not 
> received a response.

Please ask Jon to answer this publicly.

> As for incorporation of consensus, I'll be glad to ask why that hasn't
> occurred. 

This is not a question of fact but a posturing of your own personal
opinion. Postel has already stated that he modified his proposal based on
the outcome of the Geneva meeting. He is under no obligation to explain
why he did not incorporate some points of consensus in a manner which you
can clearly understand. It's his proposal and he can pick and choose as he
wishes. Maybe he couldn't figure out a good way to incorporate everything.
I don't know and I don't care. Jon is not God! He does not have to submit
perfect documents and do all our work for us. That's what the public
discussion is for and I wish people would stop trying to earn brownie
points by attacking Postel since it does not advance the process one bit.

> I will not respond to personal attacks.

You just did.

--
Michael Dillon                 -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Communications Inc.      -               E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com